Wildrose Party 2014 AGM summary.

Every party has ups and downs and challenges and turnovers. This year has been a challenging one for the party and we had many things to try and figure out going into our AGM this year. While we were disappointed in not winning the general election in 2012, we still saw progress in that we had certainly grown and had gone from a handful of seats to a respectable opposition party in the legislature. This year’s test was in the four by-elections held last month and our showing was simply disappointing. To be blunt, if we couldn’t win at least one seat in those by-elections in light of the years of profound mismanagement by our governing party, we really have no hope in hell of forming government in 18 more months in a general election. The losses led to some kneejerk responses from party leadership and some heavy internal party squabbling as the party loyal tried to grasp what had just happened and why. Tensions that had been quietly building before the by-elections began to openly erupt as we saw a caucus member sent on his way and we saw all sorts of social media eruptions from both inside and outside the party.

While all of that negativity is not pleasant to see, there is a silver lining in that it made the powers that be in the upper levels of the party more receptive to listening and changing than they have been in quite awhile and it was reflected at the AGM. The AGM itself was a success in the exchanging of ideas and communications between the members and the managers. Time will now tell if whether the communications were taken to heart. It is promising though seeing a broad questionnaire included in every package for attendees (though not promoted well) and the reverse bear-pit was excellent.

For the first time since the founding of the party I was unavailable for the Friday portion of the AGM. I am of a mind that AGMs should shift to a Saturday/Sunday format but I do understand that some folks would take exception to that and it really isn’t a huge deal. It does make it tougher for folks employed full time to attend the whole meeting. From what I heard the hospitality suites were quite lively as usual and while I did miss participating in them, it was nice not being hung over for the Saturday portion of the AGM. I did watch Danielle Smith’s keynote speech live from home. The full text of that speech can be found here.

One thing that struck me right away was the choice of Tim Dyck and Cheryl Phaff to MC the AGM. Both of them are long term grassroots members who hold volunteer positions in the party. This helped demonstrate a recognition that some members are becoming uncomfortable with a perception that paid staff are calling all shots within the party. While the party needs managerial reform in a real way, the little symbols like this go a long way too.

Danielle Smith’s keynote speech

smith2014

There were mixed reviews on Danielle’s speech. I think overall it was pretty good but one of the key points was poorly communicated in it. When Danielle began to speak on how media was not covering our positive initiatives well, I slapped my head. There are few things worse to watch than political types blaming the media for their own failures and if nothing else it tends to piss off an already fickle element in the media which will make coverage even more unfavorable. In expanding further, we could see that Danielle was segueing into encouraging us to communicating more directly on the ground with people rather than trying to rely on media. It was pointed out how press events where we were exposing a scandal with the PC party would be jammed with reporters while when we put out a positive release with a policy plan we can’t find a reporter to save our lives. This is not so much a shot at the media (though some interpreted it as such) as it is just facing and pointing out the reality in conventional media. Positive policy statements while productive are dull while scandals sell newspapers and bring in viewers. Media are bound by having to report on what is broadly viewed as interesting which is understandable. This has led to the consequence that the Wildrose only ever gets broad public coverage when a negative event is happening however and that gives folks the impression that we are chronically negative.

What I am interpreting here is that Danielle Smith was not so much trying to attack or blame media as she was trying to encourage us to spread our positive messages ourselves and at a ground level. This will entail developing our constituency presences (something that has been sorely lacking) and speaking to people at the doors and on the streets. This also means being more positive and proactive on social media whether through blogs, twitter, facebook or any of the other platforms. We need to fix our ground game and modern communications give us great opportunities to do so if we would properly utilize them. It will be in direct communications with Albertans that we will win their support rather than expecting conventional media to do that job for us. One positive experience at a doorstep will have more influence on a voter than 100 positive editorials. We need to get out there and create those positive experiences.

That whole interpretation of mine though took some thinking and reading into the speech. I am not sure if the keynote speech was the best place to try and communicate that kind of initiative and it left things open for people to portray it as a petty attack on media. Many on social media took to mocking Danielle’s light reference to appointing “fun police” as well. It was a simple pair of words used while making the very good point that politics and ground level organizing can be fun if we want to make it so. It is actually important that we do so. It is much easier to draw volunteers out when it will be a fun event rather than seeing it as a task or obligation. The Alberta Party demonstrated this excellently as they promoted their Calgary Elbow campaign. They were upbeat and held fun gatherings throughout the campaign. They drew positive and repeat volunteers which led to them having a respectable showing in Elbow despite having 2% support throughout the rest of the province. The ground game is critical and having some fun is key in building it. The other point again learned through this speech though is that we need to communicate directly as simply implying in a speech that we should have fun ended up being mocked and belittled by folks.

What I took from Danielle Smith’s speech was that some humbling has occurred and that she recognizes that we need to build up our member and community presence rather than centralize party control and rely on press releases to get the word out as we had been. Perhaps I am reading too much with optimism from this speech but this is what I gathered from it. It was not the most inspiring, fiery and profound oration to hit a convention floor by any means but it had positive messaging and some ideas that we need to follow through on.

Executive Committee Elections

On Saturday morning we began with one executive candidate speech for the only contested position at this AGM. It turned out that the opponent of the person giving the speech dropped out on Saturday turning the race into an acclamation. That meant there was not a single vote on executive positions. We had recently adopted changes extending terms and staggering their expiries. I think that still has merit but in light of having no members able to vote on EC members this year and many on the EC having been appointed rather than run for their positions, I think something backfired. We need to work on before the next AGM. The member selection of EC members is critical and we need to hold regular races for this. The races add a little competitive zing to the convention which we lacked this year as well.

Reverse Bearpit Session

bearpit

This was a refreshing, gutsy and innovative move by the party. A panel of a few elements of the party sat up and asked questions directly of the membership on a number of issues and solicited their concerns. This was purely unvarnished interaction with a full media presence. There was no effort to control messaging here. There was only an honest exercise to get feedback from concerned members.

Sitting on the panel were Danielle Smith, Dave Yager (Party President/Interim Executive Director), Jeff Callaway (VP Fundraising), Kathy MacDonald (Calgary Foothills by-election candidate), Rod Fox (MLA Lacombe Ponoka) and Brian Tiessen (Wildrose nominee Sherwood Park). The panel was modelled to cover the subjects being asked of the membership which were: issues, by-elections, operations and caucus.

On issues members came forward to the microphone and were pretty predictable in saying what motivates them. Healthcare, education and a repeated call to reduce government came in loud and clear. While perhaps unsurprising, a reinforcement being presented to party leadership on how reduction of the size and scope of government is considered a core principle by the active membership is a good thing.

On by-elections we heard stronger concerns. Some members reported a sense of poor organization in the campaigns that they volunteered on and that they were not well utilized as volunteers. One resounding message was that nobody liked the campaign slogan of “send them a message”. It is good to note that the members rejected that theme as well as the electorate. It is too bad this was recognized after the by-elections rather than before but in openly discussing this we can better avoid repeating mistakes. Members (and voters) felt that we simply were too negative in the campaign.

On operations things became more heated. Discontent on the party of the membership with party operations has been growing and I think it was a good idea to let them speak (and vent) on this. Many members wanted a bloodletting on the staff level of the party. It was confirmed that William Mcbeath is no longer in charge of political operations and that Vitor Marciano has been reduced to an advisory role and helping Danielle Smith write speeches. Personally, I think Vitor has been somewhat unfairly tarred by some within the party as the root of problems. Marciano was as key to the growth of the Wildrose to a higher level in these last few years as Danielle Smith has been but the details of that are fodder for a post another time. While Vitor has done some good, it perhaps was time that somebody else moved in. Marciano’s style did chafe with many in the membership and they expressed this.

In operations, multiple members spoke up on how terrible communications with the central party has been. Stories of repeated requests for documents, records or even simply advice languishing in party voicemail were related to the panel by frustrated members. It seemed no small coincidence that communications seemed at their worst when Constituency Association members tried to get nomination information.

Outside of communications, nominations were a huge elephant in the room. Multiple frustrated members again came to the microphone and spoke up on issues of party interference in their nomination processes and utter lack of communication on it. The response from the panel was unfortunately utterly disappointing on this one. When asked direct questions on nominations Danielle sidetracked into a speech about how a committee of MLAs is being formed to seek and recruit new nominees. That had utterly nothing to do with the question on party interference in nominations, in fact it implies that they want to take the recruitment process even further out of the hands of constituents. The party’s record on nominations so far has been abhorrent with nearly half of all nominations done over 90% of nominees were either acclaimed or appointed. Further nominations have now been deferred until January and I do hope that is because the party wants to repair the currently broken process. While the response on the spot was disappointing, I do hope the panel was at least listening and plans to come up with something better. The nomination mess is undercutting CAs and general volunteer morale in a terrible way and will bite the party’s ass hard if nothing changes.

On caucus little was said by members. I take that to mean they are pretty content with that. Some folks took the microphone to go on their own pet diatribes and some did some unproductive bitching but as a whole I think the reverse bearpit went very well.

Policy

The policy discussions were well organized and went quite smoothly. The system of having constituency associations rank policy proposals worked well in filtering out the more important from the less pressing proposals. There is room to work on getting more CAs to participate in the rankings and perhaps in the numbering system but it worked as well as it could. Our constitution allows any 5 members to bring forth a policy proposal and when I was VP policy we literally had proposals in the hundreds one year. These proposals simply must be pared down as not enough time exists at any AGM to debate them all. Tim Dyck’s organization of this was as good as any I have seen to date.

Discussion was typically well controlled. Three were allowed to speak for and three against before a vote was held on any policy. Something that was interesting was how many policies came to a pretty close vote requiring counting. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing to be honest. I found myself torn on voting on a number of policies as I saw good points made on both sides. For the most part, there was little of controversy in our policy formulation.

We did manage to create some controversy for ourselves by regurgitating a failed policy proposal that wanted to try and identify each and every conceivable minority group on the planet and recognize their rights while replacing our current policy which already supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in full and the rights of ALL people being equally protected. This vote was not even close and members resoundingly supported the protection of rights for all as is already in our policies.

The differences are laid out here on Jane Morgan’s site. No sense reproducing all the details on this faux-controversy here. The bottom line is that some tall foreheads decided to ensure that the folks playing gotcha politics could find some sort of issue to try and paint the party as being intolerant and they gave them one. The Wildrose Party’s policies were inclusive and protected the rights of all the day before yesterday and they still do today. Rejecting foolish and divisive identity politics being enshrined in policy is not bigotry, it is common sense. It should be noted that not a single party sitting in the legislature lists all groups for protection in their policies either. The Wildrose policies on this are the same as the NDP, PCs and Liberals essentially. There is no controversy or intolerance here despite some trying to create it.

Constitution

The constitutional discussions went much like the policy ones. Pretty smoothly with good debate. The bar for constitutional change is higher than policy in that we need 75% in order to change something as opposed to 50% in policy.

Some housekeeping changes were made and some proposals were rejected. One proposal that would have reduced party interference in nominations won the support of the majority of the room but still fell short of the requisite 75%. Such is democracy. Perhaps next year.

The whole of section 9 of the party constitution was removed after some debate. The notions in section 9 were perhaps well meaning but in reality were unfeasible in the constitution. Section 9 called for party control over caucus actions. This clashes with proper government representation and simply could not remain in our constitution. The section was removed and we continue to grow up.

One proposal to enshrine our commitment to the protection for human rights for all was supported by about 98% of the room in a vote too so the party have reiterated commitment to human rights on more than one level now. It will still never be enough for some of course.

After constitution we had what I saw as a positive and standard sort of closing speech from party President David Yager.

The AGM as a whole was a success. No huge changes were made and people did not come out screaming with enthusiasm and ready to take on the world. A great deal of communication and open party introspection happened though and this is important. The Wildrose Party needs to reform itself and grow further and having frank sort of meetings like this is a step on the way there. The meeting this year definitely had a theme of listening on the part of party leadership. They listened indeed, now we will see if they truly heard us.

Informal AGM initiatives

On Friday evening a young party activist disappointed with the on again/off again leadership review idea handed out a parody “wiltedrose” ballot to members. It was not generally well received. Guess he made a point all the same and that is part of the game.

ballot

A paper was distributed to gather more support for Rod Fox’s upcoming motion 501 on property rights.

motion501

Most funny and sad was an initiative by supporters of Randy Thorsteinson who placed one of these under every vehicle in the parking lot calling for the formation of a Reform Party (how original) with what appears to be a very unapologetically socially conservative and anti-abortion platform. Aside from a facebook group formed a few months back, I don’t think he is really getting anywhere with this but he may at least draw a few of the less moderate away from the Wildrose. Good luck Randy.

thorsteinson

 

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 thoughts on “Wildrose Party 2014 AGM summary.

  1. Thanks Cory for a careful documentation of events. I have never commented on your blogs previously because in general I find them refreshing and bang on. In this case I have to raise exception to one opinion offered and that is that Victor has been unfairly tarnished with by-Eelection failures. We had an exceptional opportunity with Sheila Taylor and the campaign message insisted on by our experts was send the PC’s a message? While I have not had the benefit of the tactical decisions on the ground that Cory may possibly have, or the details of events as they unfolded, I (and dozens of others) do have a very excellent set of facts and well documented statements by candidates and campaign volunteers about the readiness teams performance in 2012. There were several incidents of ego driven paranoid interference that erupted from the provincial team during the campaign process that were harmful to campaigns and relationships. Then there have been the numerous lapses in communications with volunteers brought in by CA’s to deal with the numerous flawed views in the area of party policy which have typified Victors member-relations from the very beginning. I do not wish to add to the brief remarks of our very diplomatic leader on Saturday, but I can tell you that no one I know is prepared to have any of this laundry fall onto Danielle Smith who must always be able to rely on the abilities of those around her. Victor has most certainly been the architect of his own demise (if not in 2014 in 2012 and on numerous other occasions before and since). It would not be constructive at this point to inspire sympathy campaigns for the man from within the ranks or review all of the history going back to the beginning of his involvement of the WRP. If anyone is struggling with the party, caucus or leader’s expectations of competent and accountable performance out of staff and contractors – by all means start an “Alberta” Reform Party and approach this individual to serve as party leader. You may be pleasantly surprised by his response!!! It is time we motivated staff to excel in their positions and to follow the leader that the majority of members have chosen as a winner, not some proxy with a plan be to be an opposition party in perpetuity! In 2012 one could see the slack and coasting that was settling in as the campaign team began relying on flawed polling. Now that the reaction in 2014 has been quite different, perhaps everyone can turn to the task of following the chosen strategy (plan A).

  2. Good blog Cory. However, 1 fact you got wrong. There was a Jeff Callaway on the panel too. 😉 I can say we had a 4 hour ec meeting on Sunday at which we discussed a lot of the feedback we received throughout the weekend in the halls, hospitality suites, and in the sessions. Amongst those items, communication is something I know we all on the ec want to improve upon so I am certain the cas will be seeing more on this in the coming weeks.

    • Oops thanks Jeff. I even took that crappy picture so I could remember who all was on there. Glad the ball is already rolling.

  3. From someone who voted for the WRP as soon as it became an option for me – I won’t be voting for them again unless they do a major rework of the party including a new leader. I watched in dismay as candidate after candidate after candidate fell to the most corrupt premier in Alberta’s history. Then I watched in the byelections as the same campaign had the same disastrous results. While prior to the 2012 campaign I thought I knew what the WRP stood for and I supported, I can’t say that is still the case today. Other than a rampant “We Love Danielle” I don’t know where the party stands. What policy does it hold that it hasn’t changed at least twice and will likely change again if it thinks it will garner a few more votes for Danielle?

  4. Pingback: Wildrose Party 2014 AGM summary. | Castle Downs is a beautiful area in North West Edmonton that consists of eleven distinct neighbourhoods.

  5. Pingback: Kicking Dead Horses – Wildrose AGM 2014 | John's Journey

  6. Joe, the PC Party is a corrupt, narcissistic party that has taken all sides on policy issues. When it can’t decide on a policy it conceals, fabricates and lies (look at the utter dishonest and confusing method of provincial accounting). The infrastructure claimed to know nothing about the sky palace. There originally was nothing wrong with the premier flying her kid around at government expense, then it was very bad. Despite all of the oil windfall revenue, these PC bozos can’t balance the books. The squandering of Alberta wealth is a real tragedy for future generations. The greedy PC party should be obliterated.

  7. First off, thanks to you and Jane for all of your efforts – without the two of you, the party would not be where it is today. I believe you have had the right balance of supporting the party and challenging the (volunteer and paid) leadership of the party. I hope your patience and tenacity is greatly rewarded in future!

    Personally, I was a big fan of the Wildrose after Danielle became leader and even volunteered with the Party back in late 2009 and early 2010. Some of the concerns I had back then were:

    1) Provincial and federal politics are two different kettle of fish. You can’t do everything the CPC does federally in Alberta (provincially), and expect the same results.

    2) Danielle had no political experience, ergo, no political instinct. This can’t be learned by rote. She has had no choice but to rely on the brain trust around her.

    3) Believing their own press. Back in 2009 and 2010, under Danielle’s leadership, the Wildrose’s key message was that they were going to form the next government. I tried to point out that they sounded even more arrogant than the PC’s – especially with a new and untested leader, without any political experience. It’s been five years……

    4) Danielle’s insistence they weren’t going to do things like every other party – such as not having an ED, no patronage appointments, etc. Within two months of espousing those views, an ED search had begun and she was trying to find jobs for all of her leadership campaign team members. (Not to mention the fact that she has told the Calgary-Bow CA that she will be appointed a candidate for the next election and no nomination process will be taking place. Um…how is that any different than the PC’s or CPC? just sayin’.)

    5) The Smoke and Mirrors approach. The party has been created to be Danielle. (I would hazard a guess that the average person couldn’t name another Wildrose MLA other than Danielle, or perhaps their own.) From what I can see, all the party has cared about is providing the optics of Danielle being a winner and that people would just fall all over themselves to vote for HER, therefore any other WRP candidate. Fundraising has mostly been a priority for the Central Party to ensure Danielle wins a Premiership while the CA’s have suffered financially without adequate training and support. The weak Constituency Associations have long been a concern to members. The reality is, the Wildrose is NOT going to be successful without strong CA’s, which will require training and support. If the Central Party is not committed to providing the leadership and support to the CA’s, then just say that instead of pretending the Wildrose is a grassroots party.

    Five years later, these are the things that concern me about the Wildrose:

    1) They have done everything the CPC does federally and it didn’t get them the results they had been hoping for in Alberta. I strongly believe this is because the majority of their key organizers are CPC people. Unless the Wildrose can engage high-profile, former PC members for the positions of Campaign Chair, Campaign Manager and Executive Director, the party is destined to keep repeating the same mistakes. (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.)

    2) Coming out and saying Joe Anglin was taping conversations and she had no idea where that information would end up so they didn’t feel they could have open and honest discussion in caucus for over a year was a HUGE mistake. Not to mention the fact she had absolutely zero proof. It made her look weak as a leader.

    3) Kicking Joe out of caucus followed by sweeping staff changes only confirmed Joe’s opinion about the “civil war” taking place within the Wildrose. (There is a revolving door of party staff members, EC committee members and provincial directors – so much so that the party no longer lists the Party contacts on the Wildrose website.) It’s not rocket science that the party is in chaos.

    4) Blaming the media for the positive Wildrose message not getting out. As a former journalist, Danielle knows better than this!!! I know the point she was trying to make but she did herself a gross disservice even saying this out loud. I was actually embarrassed for her.

    5) The return to the grassroots sounds good, but the Wildrose will need to be very careful managing the new initiatives. Who is going to make sure all 100 bloggers are on message? The CA’s aren’t even strong – how is the party going to manage building strong CA’s AND supporting the 1000 ambassadors, the WRP service corps, and the “fun” police? Especially, basically, just 18 months prior to an election campaign?

    6) And finally, in all honesty, had I been a member, at the AGM this past weekend, I would’ve voted in favour of the original motion on equality rights – however, as a former journalist, I am completely dumbfounded that Danielle doesn’t seem to understand the optics of this vote going forward. Especially after bragging about the more inclusive stance the night before. Telling the general public that she wasn’t there for the vote (this tells me she already knew the direction the vote was heading), that she understands why the members made the decision they did, and that it’s no big deal and nothing has changed is absolutely ridiculous. That’s not the perception of the general public. And, perception is reality. (As evidenced by the tv, newspaper, online and twitter coverage of the whole story.)

    As far as I’m concerned, both the Wildrose and PC’s have a lot to deal with to prove their worthiness to the electorate by 2016.

    • You are certainly right and prescient with point 6 as today’s resignations show. Politics is more than just logic. Perception and emotion are more important as shown many times including the election of Obama and Trudeau’s popularity. It is a small step to add a sentence that the party is against discrimination against people because of sexual orientation, yadda, yadda. WR has thrown away the next election.

    • Good catch and yeah, it is a spitting image. Randy never was much one for originality. The colors of the original Alberta Alliance (and the name of course) were clearly taken directly from the Canadian Alliance at the time.

      • Yeah, I remember the Alberta Alliance’s brand identity, and how it closely mimicked the CA’s.

        Judging by the vocal disdain for Democrats – and particularly Barack Obama – by many conservatives on both sides of the border, it seems pretty odd for such a strongly conservative outfit to want to emulate their brand.

        It is kind of funny, though, if you know a little of the background to the Democratic Party’s current “circle D” logo. I’ve heard from some friends that it was supposed to look vaguely like the “drive” selector on an automatic transmission…. it ties into a saying repeated by a number of Democratic politicians for years, that, “politics is like driving: If you want to go forward, put it in D. If you want to go backward, put it in R.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *